295d
Kell, are there any other scientific fields you disagree with other than evolution? Or do you only disagree with the ones that contradict your beliefs?
Do you believe human biology or botany is a lie? What about astrophysics? Do you believe in everything about astrophysics except the Big Bang or the age of the universe/earth?
Simply put: is there any branch of science other than the ones that disagree with your religious views that you doubt?
If your answer is no: that's quite the coincidence, is it not?
295d
@vivify saidEvolution is a theory, and unless you nail down exactly what you mean by that, changing over time, changing from a common ancestor, or something else?? The word is to vague to know what you mean and think needs to be agreed to or not.
Kell, are there any other scientific fields you disagree with other than evolution? Or do you only disagree with the ones that contradict your beliefs?
Do you believe human biology or botany is a lie? What about astrophysics? Do you believe in everything about astrophysics except the Big Bang or the age of the universe/earth?
Simply put: is there any branch of sci ...[text shortened]... religious views that you doubt?
If your answer is no: that's quite the coincidence, is it not?
The beginning is where all the answers are even if some want to avoid that. From the point of the Big Bang where ever that happened to be, everything is moving away from the starting point. Not like explosions we know about, the speed in movement is increasing, is that a natural explanation?
I am interested in the truth, I assume you are too. I also assume when someone confronts you with explanations that do not line up with yours, if it is important enough you defend your position. You think I should not, I think it’s more important when I think the herd is wrong not when I am in agreement with it.
295d
@vivify saidI have zero issues with science some conclusions yes. Those should be hashed out with logic and facts, but people normally get upset when their worldview opinions get challenged and switched topics to religion.
Kell, are there any other scientific fields you disagree with other than evolution? Or do you only disagree with the ones that contradict your beliefs?
Do you believe human biology or botany is a lie? What about astrophysics? Do you believe in everything about astrophysics except the Big Bang or the age of the universe/earth?
Simply put: is there any branch of sci ...[text shortened]... religious views that you doubt?
If your answer is no: that's quite the coincidence, is it not?
- Joined
- 14 Jan 19
- Moves
- 4277
295d
@vivify saidSimply put, it's all a pack of lies. Nothing is real in this physical world.... Are you for real? I mean starting a thread dedicated solely to Kelly's disagreements?
Kell, are there any other scientific fields you disagree with other than evolution? Or do you only disagree with the ones that contradict your beliefs?
Do you believe human biology or botany is a lie? What about astrophysics? Do you believe in everything about astrophysics except the Big Bang or the age of the universe/earth?
Simply put: is there any branch of sci ...[text shortened]... religious views that you doubt?
If your answer is no: that's quite the coincidence, is it not?
295d
@kellyjay saidSo you zero issues with any scientific field...except the ones that contradict your religion.
I have zero issues with science some conclusions yes. Those should be hashed out with logic and facts, but people normally get upset when their worldview opinions get challenged and switched topics to religion.
Correct?
295d
@pettytalk saidYou have a difficult time with understanding
Simply put, it's all a pack of lies. Nothing is real in this physical world.... Are you for real? I mean starting a thread dedicated solely to Kelly's disagreements?
295d
@kellyjay saidThen let me put thus as plainly as possible: what scientific ideas do you disagree with that have nothing to do with your religion?
You seem to be able to ignore what is said and replace it with something way out in left field.
Are there any? If so please give a specific example. If not, I hope you see the point.
294d
@vivify saidIt is NOT science versus religion, they are not opposed to one another, understanding reality and truth are the goals and that does not put them at odds with one another. Can we be wrong about anything due to our lack of understanding in science, yes, in religion, yes. So seeking the truth does not mean one has to turn off our minds to one or the other, many of the greatest minds in science were also believers in God, and some great thinkers believed in gods as well.
Then let me put thus as plainly as possible: what scientific ideas do you disagree with that have nothing to do with your religion?
Are there any? If so please give a specific example. If not, I hope you see the point.
Science is self-correcting it is powerful that way as long as a dogma doesn't come in and force acceptance over evidence. Religious beliefs are either correct or not, we can make mistakes misunderstanding some text or the text we are using is wrong. We still can while viewing some limited things that are true in either science or religion we can still get things wrong because we are not viewing what we are looking at with the complete information required to understand, some pieces of the puzzle, maybe overlooked or are not available so we make wrong assumptions. That would be like looking at a math problem not realizing you are missing some parts of the equation to get the correct answer.
294d
@vivify saidKellyJay has previously stated that he doesn’t believe in the scientific explanation of gravity.
Kell, are there any other scientific fields you disagree with other than evolution? Or do you only disagree with the ones that contradict your beliefs?
Do you believe human biology or botany is a lie? What about astrophysics? Do you believe in everything about astrophysics except the Big Bang or the age of the universe/earth?
Simply put: is there any branch of sci ...[text shortened]... religious views that you doubt?
If your answer is no: that's quite the coincidence, is it not?
Linked to this I’ve asked him if he is a believer in the flat earth theory, but he had declined to answer.
294d
1 edit
@pettytalk saidOn what basis do you object to this thread?
Are you for real? I mean starting a thread dedicated solely to Kelly's disagreements?
294d
@kellyjay saidDodge noted. This thread is not about what I believe; it's all about you.
I don't know, do you?
Next question for KellyJay:
These are the accepted durations for the time it takes for radioactive isotopes to decay into stabile elements such as lead (times given are in years):
<<
The naturally occurring radioelements are mainly found in thorium and uranium ores. Uranium-238, uranium-235, and thorium-232 have long half-life (238-U: 4.5×10^9 years, 235-U: 7.04×10^8 years, 232-Th: 1.4×10^10 years). Otherwise, they would not exist in nature today because some 10^9 years have already passed since the origin of the elements. Some of the radioactive decay products of these three long-living radioelements have much shorter half-lives, they are always newly produced by the radioactive decay of the long-living ‘parent radionuclides’. The stable end products of these naturally occurring radioactive decay series are 206-Pb (for 238-U), 207-Pb (for 235-U), and 208-Pb (for 232-Th). There was a fourth decay series in nature, which is ‘extinct’ now because of the rather short half-life of the parent radionuclide (237-Np: 2.14×10^6 years).
There are a number of other elements that also have naturally occurring radioactive isotopes besides the stable ones. They also have very long half-lives, similar to uranium and thorium; some of them are listed in Table 2 (below).
Table 2:
40-K 1.3×10^9
87-Rb 4.7×10^10
190-Pt 6.1×10^11
187-Re 5×10^10
176-Lu 3.6×10^10
>>
quoted from:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/earth-and-planetary-sciences/uranium-238
Now, just to give people some idea how long these periods are, 1 x10^10 (one times ten to the tenth power) = 10,000,000,000 (years). Uranium-238 goes through a long series of isotopes, each with its own half-life in the above-mentioned ranges, before it stabilizes into lead: billions of years to go through the whole series.
So here is my question to KellyJay: do you think those figures are correct, that billions of years have elapsed, or do you think those numbers are simply fictions? Do you think this is something physicists just made up? Or maybe you think radioactive isotopes do not decay, that uranium and thorium stay uranium and thorium forever and never change into anything else. What say you? This is not a trick question. I really want to know what you think physics has firmly established and what you think people just make up as they go along ('just a theory' ).
294d
@divegeester saidLIAR
KellyJay has previously stated that he doesn’t believe in the scientific explanation of gravity.
Linked to this I’ve asked him if he is a believer in the flat earth theory, but he had declined to answer.